No, the Texas Abortion Law’s Enforcement Mechanism Isn’t Unprecedented

It repurposes a legal tactic that progressives have been using to great effect for a century.

Source: No, the Texas Abortion Law’s Enforcement Mechanism Isn’t Unprecedented

But these are not the only principles at work in the law, and for several centuries Anglo-American law has made some limited provisions for third-party enforcement of rights. Known as relator actions, these special proceedings are precedents for the Texas law that should be familiar to most lawyers. A well-known example in American law is the whistleblower qui tam action, which incentivizes people with knowledge of public fraud to pursue legal remedies against the perpetrators. Another familiar example is inter partes review of patents, in which citizens ask the Patent Office to invalidate patents alleged to be unmeritorious. The principle used to justify relator actions is that someone who abuses or infringes a public right should not get away with it simply because officials lack the resources, willingness, or access to evidence necessary to hold him to account.

It is difficult to imagine two public wrongs that are more significant than the intentional killing of a human being (in legal terms, murder) or the removal of a human being’s arm or leg (in legal terms, mayhem). If unborn human beings are persons, then abortion is murder, and many abortions involve mayhem. One could fail to recognize the precedents for the Texas law only if one assumes that murdering and dismembering unborn persons is not a legal wrong.

Ironically, Chief Justice Roberts, in his dissent, failed to mention that the Supreme Court’s own precedents already authorize private persons to assert the rights of third parties in abortion lawsuits. Since 1976, the Court has allowed abortionists to assert the rights of their female patients in court when attempting to block enforcement of abortion laws, even laws that secure the health and rights of those very same female patients. No other medical professionals are permitted to assert their patients’ rights in order to obtain immunity from the law. And the Court has never allowed anyone to initiate a lawsuit against abortionists on behalf of their unborn victims. This anomalous asymmetry seems not to have been lost on Texas legislators, even if it apparently escaped Chief Justice Roberts’s notice.

The Court has often ignored basic doctrines of American jurisprudence when progressive causes are at stake, and not just in abortion cases. Most projects of social engineering that the Left has constructed over the last century, from zoning ordinances to discrimination commissions, blur the distinction between public and private rights. And the Court makes many progressive aims achievable when it allows leftist activists to assert rights not their own. For example, eugenics laws, such as the Virginia statute that the Court enthusiastically endorsed in the 1927 decision Buck v. Bell, empowered institutional administrators to pursue the forcible sterilization of vulnerable Americans when they deemed it to be in the “best interests of the patients and of society.”

It is easy to understand why abortion proponents have selective memories of these legal precedents and so little interest in the jurisprudential principles that undergird the rule of law; murder and mayhem are inherent legal wrongs, and the only way to portray abortion as a “right” is to tear apart the fabric of American law and to ignore what the Constitution actually says.

It is more difficult to understand why conservative legal luminaries who are not pro-abortion would portray the Texas statute as unique and unprecedented. Perhaps they have lost sight of the principles that render the rule of law coherent. The Court often abandoned those principles early in the 20th century in order to ratify progressive projects of social engineering. The only innovation of Texas legislators was to use the Left’s tactics in defense of our society’s most vulnerable.

Why Trump Shouldn’t be Impeached

As best I can tell, while Trump is morally responsible for the recent riot he is not legally responsible, since everything he did that contributed to it was something he had a legal right to do. But requirements for impeachment, other than a majority vote in the House to impeach and two-thirds in the Senate to convict, are unclear, so that is not, in my view, the fundamental issue.

Source: Why Trump Shouldn’t be Impeached

Troubling That This Even Needs Considering

What happens if Democrats decide rioting is fine when done by non-Deplorables and citizens have to deal with riots:

When word is received that a flash mob is forming at one of their pre-reconnoitered intersections or highway interchanges, the SAV team will assemble. Sometimes cooperating police will pass tactical intel to their civilian friends on the outside. Some clever individuals will have exploited their technical know-how and military experience to build real-time intel collection tools, such as private UAVs. Police will have access to urban security camera footage showing MUYs moving barricade materials into position—a normal prerequisite to a flash mob riot intended to stop traffic. Tip-offs to the vigilantes will be common, and where the networks are still functioning, citizens may still be able to access some video feeds. Sometimes, police will even join the SAV teams, incognito and off-duty, blurring the teams into so-called “death squads.”

The operation I will describe (and it’s only one of dozens that will be tried) uses two ordinary pickup trucks and eight fighters. Two riflemen are lying prone in the back of each truck, facing rearward, with removable canvas covers concealing their presence. Their semi-automatic, scoped rifles are supported at their front ends on bipods for very accurate shooting. A row of protective sandbags a foot high is between them and the raised tailgate.

In the cab are a driver and a spotter in the passenger seat who also serves as the vehicle’s 360-degree security. The two trucks don’t ever appear on the same stretch of road, but coordinate their movements using one-word brevity codes over small FRS walkie-talkie radios. Each truck has a series of predetermined elevated locations where the intersection in question will lie between 200 and 500 yards away. Each truck is totally nondescript and forgettable, the only detail perhaps being the non-MUY ethnicity of the suburbanite driver and spotter driving relatively near to a riot in progress.

By the time the two SAV pickup trucks arrive at their firing positions on different streets and oriented ninety degrees to one another, the flash mob riot is in full swing. A hundred or more of the rampaging youths are posturing and throwing debris into traffic in order to intimidate some cars into stopping. The riflemen in the backs of the pickups are waiting for this moment and know what to expect, trusting their spotters and drivers to give them a good firing lane. The spotters in each truck issue a code word on their radios when they are in final position. The tailgates are swung down, and the leader among the riflemen initiates the firing. All-around security is provided by the driver and spotter.

Source: Troubling That This Even Needs Considering

A major function of the police is to protect criminals from mob justice. Remove that barrier, and we may not like what results.

FLASHBACK: Brooks is, of course, horrified at Trump and his supporters, whom he finds childish, t…

FLASHBACK:

Brooks is, of course, horrified at Trump and his supporters, whom he finds childish, thuggish and contemptuous of the things that David Brooks likes about today’s America. It’s clear that he’d like a social/political revolution that was more refined, better-mannered, more focused on the Constitution and, well, more bourgeois as opposed to in-your-face and working class.

The thing is, we had that movement. It was the Tea Party movement. . . .

Yet the tea party movement was smeared as racist, denounced as fascist, harassed with impunity by the IRS and generally treated with contempt by the political establishment — and by pundits like Brooks, who declared “I’m not a fan of this movement.” After handing the GOP big legislative victories in 2010 and 2014, it was largely betrayed by the Republicans in Congress, who broke their promises to shrink government and block Obama’s initiatives.

So now we have Trump instead, who tells people to punch counterprotesters instead of picking up their trash.

When politeness and orderliness are met with contempt and betrayal, do not be surprised if the response is something less polite, and less orderly. Brooks closes his Trump column with Psalm 73, but a more appropriate verse is Hosea 8:7 “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” Trump’s ascendance is a symptom of a colossal failure among America’s political leaders, of which Brooks’ mean-spirited insularity is only a tiny part. God help us all.

Still true. I’ve been warning about this for years, but apparently to no effect. Maybe this time the people in charge will get serious?

Source: FLASHBACK

LARRY CORREIA IS LAUGHING AT YOUR BULLSHIT: A friend of mine posted about seeing this: “Where are…

LARRY CORREIA IS LAUGHING AT YOUR BULLSHIT: A friend of mine posted about seeing this: “Where are all you gun owners now that the federal government and police are attacking citizens in the streets?? Now that the National Guard is out oppressing citizens?

Source: LARRY CORREIA IS LAUGHING AT YOUR BULLSHIT: A friend of mine posted about seeing this: “Where are…

A Thought Experiment

***** As of now, I will no longer tolerate any clothing featuring the hammer and sickle. The hammer and sickle is the symbol of a totalitarian ideology that has murdered millions since its conception. The very sight of this iconography triggers me to such a degree that I feel perfectly justified abusing total strangers who’ve made the choice to wear it on their bodies.

Source: A Thought Experiment